JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut dated June 26, 1981 through which he has recommended that the order of the trial court dated July 4, 1980 be set aside and the auction conducted on December 5, 1979 in favour of the revisionist be upheld. 2. The facts of this case is brief are that the opposite party Subedar Singh brought a suit under section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in which the revisionist Murari Singh and Babu Singh were defendants because the Khata belonged to all the three to them. 3. The trial court passed preliminary decree holding ?rd share regarding each of the co-tenureholders. Subsequently the plaintiff applied for final decree. Since the land was less than 3? acre the trial court ordered for the auction of the land between co-sharers which was carried out in the court in December 5, 1979 and the revisionist Babu Singh made the highest bid for Rs. 22,500/- hence the auction was made in his favour. He deposited Rs. 7,500/- on the same day and January 6, 1980 was filed for objection. 4. The plaintiff filed an objection stating that there should have been a public auction and that a proclamation should have been issued under Rule 161 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 5. The trial court accepted the objection and set aside the auction on the ground taut a proclamation should have been issued before the auction. 6. On revision the learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference with the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the auction in favour of Babu Singh be upheld. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and record. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that in these auctions order XXI Rule 83 to 86 are applicable, hence not only that a proclamation should have deposited th of the auction price at the time of auction and should have deposited the balance of the money within 15 days as per rule 85 order XXI C.P.C. He, therefore, contended that the entire procedure for auction is illegal and the revision deserves to dismissed. He further argued that in this case a fresh proclamation should be issued for public auction. 9. He further argued that in this case a fresh proclamation should be issued for public auction. 9. After going through the provisions contained in the Z.A. Act and rules 1 find that the above argument have no bearing to acts of the present case. Rule 179 to 162 of the Z.A. Act are relevant for the end of this case. The provision of rule 179 and 180 could not be attracted to the present case because none of the share holders claimed to be having preferential right is purchasing the land. Consequently no sale could be made under court was not required to pass any order under those sections. The result was that the court was bound to proceed under Section 181 of the said Act and could made an auction of the land between co-sharers and when Babu Singh offered the highest price the court had to accept his offer and could not deny him the sale. The auction made in his favour was, therefore, perfectly valid and could not be set aside on the ground that no proclamation had been issued. As a matter of fact in sale under section 181 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 the provisions of Order XXI are not applicable and they are attracted only to the sale conducted under Section 182 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 when public auction is made. In such circumstances the order of the trial court is cancelling the auction made on December 5, 1979 in favour of Babu Singh was, therefore, against law and has been rightly recommended to be annulled. The reference is, therefore, worthy of being accepted and the revision deserves to be allowed. 10. In view of the above discussion, the reference is accepted and the revision is allowed. The order dated July 4, 1982 passed by the trial court is set aside and the sale made in favour of Babu Singh on December 5, 1979 is confirmed.